Van DuBose’s letter (Chronicle, June 22) about Bath Deserves Better doing well to follow established protocols is a curious piece.

As a publicly pro-park and ride supporter and one of only four people who spoke in favour of the scheme at the January 2017 Cabinet meeting, he is aware that the Bathampton Meadows Alliance (BMA) has assiduously followed official avenues when it comes to inputting into the formal process of potentially developing a fourth park and ride.

He has spent time with the group in private exchanging views and has been sent copies of their responses to public consultations.

In his speech in January, Mr DuBose said that there were three Bath transport issues – congestion and pollution, restricted pedestrian movement and car dependency with little scope for alternative travel.

Are these not the very things that a new park and ride would perpetuate, leaving very little money for improving pedestrian movement?

Read More

Letters, June 29 paper

So we question who is the more genuine in their approach here? The campaign group that has worked alongside (and with the full support of) parish and ward councillors and that has been at pains to point out that this scheme is at odds with government guidance on improving air quality, that the transport strategy only ever promised to look at whether a new P&R was needed (rather than simply deliver one) and that it is clear that existing P&R are neither popular nor a sound investment of public money? Or his letter that isn’t upfront about its vested interests?

Since early 2016, the BMA has called repeatedly for the council to share any evidence it has as to why people are in their cars, so that the community can play its part in helping suggest the evidence-based alternatives to P&R that would encourage people to actually get out of their cars in the way that Mr DuBose (rightly) desires.

Without this data we have begun to compile our own, but each new set points yet again to P&R not being the answer to our city’s congestion issues. We suspect this is why the council prefers not to make good its offer to work with us made to us at a public meeting some 18 months ago.

The BMA will continue to follow due process in spite of the frustrations, but now also supports Bath Deserves Better because the council leadership continues to waste vast sums of money (£3m and counting on the fourth P&R, of which £2m by this administration) on this discredited scheme and is willing to obfuscate and mislead both the public and other councillors in the process. For those interested to find out more about how the group has followed the council’s protocols, the Ideas and Research page of the campaign’s website is a great place to start.